+ Sponsors

Thursday, 28 August 2008

Fujifilm Finepix S100FS Review, Part 2

By Ctein

In Part 1 of this review, I reported that there was almost no difference in image quality between the Fuji Finepix S100FS and the Nikon D200 at ISO 100, despite a 2.5X difference in sensor dimensions. Low-light noise was a different matter. I needed to drop the S100FS down to ISO 800 to match the shadow noise qualities of the Nikon at ISO 1600. Based purely on the 6X difference in pixel area, that's nowhere near as big a difference as one would expect if all things were equal. But as I point out frequently (even obsessively) things are never technologically entirely equal between cameras and generations.

What about my Fuji S6000fd? RAW images looked about like one would expect; the smaller pixels in the S100FS cost about half a stop in speed, relative to the S6000, above ISO 800. You can see this in illustrations 1 through 4, comparing ISO 1600 and 3200 performance of the S6000fd and the S100FS. Below 800, the superior imaging and noise characteristics of the S100FS won out.

1. This RAW photograph was made with the S6000fd at ISO 1600. Click on the image for 100% scale. Compare it to illustrations 2, 3 and 4.

2. This RAW photograph was made with the S6000fd at ISO 3200. Click on the image for 100% scale.

3. This RAW photograph was made with the S100FS at ISO 1600. The S100FS has more pixels, so this opens at 75% scale, to make the S6000fd and S100FS illustrations correspond to same-size prints. It's midway in quality between the S6000fd's ISO 1600 and 3200 RAW images.

4. This RAW photograph was made with the S100FS at ISO 3200. The S100FS has more pixels, so this opens at 75% scale, to make the S6000fd and S100FS illustrations correspond to same-size prints.

But, when I photographed JPEGs (illustrations numbered 5 through 8), the ranking changed! The JPEGs from the S100FS had over a full stop speed advantage on the S6000. Vastly better signal processing in the S100 does a much more sophisticated job of retaining detail and fine image structure. Yes, the S100FS JPEGs are noisier, but they're a lot more acceptable than the S6000's combination of mushed out detail, smeary grain, and salt and pepper shot noise.

5. A highest-quality JPEG made with the S6000fd at ISO 1600. Click on the image for 100% scale. Compare it to illustrations 6, 7 and 8.

6. A highest-quality JPEG made with the S100FS at ISO 1600. The illustration (opened) is at 75% scale, to correspond to same-size prints from both cameras. It's vastly better than the S6000fd's JPEG.

7. A highest-quality JPEG made with the S100FS at ISO 3200. The illustration opens at 75% scale. Still beats out an ISO 1600 JPEG from the S6000fd.

8. A highest-quality JPEG made with the S100FS at ISO 6400. The opened illustration is at 100% scale, because the S100FS is binning pixels down to 6 MP. Better detail but more noise than an ISO 1600 JPEG from the S6000fd.

I assumed the ISO 6400 (6 MP reduced resolution) and ISO 10,000 (3 MP reduced resolution) JPEG modes would be a joke. While I still consider ISO 10,000 to be an act of desperation, the ISO 6400 setting actually served me well when I was photographing a collection of musician friends performing for each other. A big part of the reason was the camera's burst mode.

The S100FS can buffer seven highest-quality JPEGs or three RAW images. The S100FS accepts xD and SD(HC) storage cards. Avoid xDs, though; they're a lot more expensive and slower. Writing a RAW file to an xD-H card took 7.5 seconds vs. 2.5 sec for a 60X SDHC card. In normal use, camera cycle time was a little under one second. With a 60X SDHC card, that meant I could make five RAW exposures as fast as the camera would cycle before I had to wait while it cleared the buffer. In JPEG mode, I never had to wait.

In burst mode the S100FS photographs three RAW or seven JPEG images in one second. Then the camera needs to take a breath while it writes the data out (around seven seconds on the SDHC card). I used this in combination with the ISO 6400 JPEG setting to capture my musician friends' fleeting expressions with considerable success.

JPEG burst mode can capture 7 frames in a second. It's great for photographing performers, pets, and other fast-moving critters. This burst was made at ISO 6400 with –1 stop exposure compensation.

There's also a free-running burst mode, where the camera just keeps shoving exposures into the buffer until you release the shutter. Then it saves the last second's worth of photos.

Auto-bracketing burst mode was my favorite. Set the bracket interval in 1/3 stops up to +/– 1 stop, press the shutter button and in one second it captures three exposures on setting, plus the interval, and minus the interval. Faced with really extreme luminance ranges, I found it less distracting to just grab a burst and waste some storage space than fiddle with the exposure. I wish auto-bracketing went to +/–2 stops. That would be great for HDR.

Camera controls and other issuesMany (not all) of the controls are well-located. Just behind the shutter release are two buttons that bring up the ISO and the exposure information displays. Just behind them, conveniently positioned for one's thumb, is a control wheel that changes the ISO or the exposure compensation.

If neither button is pressed, spinning the wheel changes exposure settings. In Program mode, it trades off aperture for shutter speed. Using that in combination with exposure compensation, I wound up doing almost all my photography in Program mode, hardly needing to use either Shutter or Aperture priority.

Image stabilization works as advertised. Dynamic Range Expansion works, but at a price. Going from DR100 (the normal default setting) to DR200 forces the ISO up to 200 and going to DR400 forces that up to 400. DR400 will add about two stops to the range of a JPEG and somewhere between one and two stops to the range of a RAW image but with substantially increased noise. With 11 RAW stops at ISO 100 I doubt I'll care about DRE.

The LCD screen on the back of the camera has decent enough image quality that one can actually use it for sorting and previewing photographs. Pull it out at a 45-degree angle for comfortable viewing of the screen while the camera sits on the table in front of you.

Still to come...All in all, I enjoyed using the camera, and I loved the innate image quality. The various exposure and burst modes made it easier to make many of my photographs and got me a higher percentage of successes. So, why did I keep flipping between loving and hating this camera? Tune in next time for the exciting conclusion of this three-part review. Here there be dragons!

Interesting findings. They confirm my own experience as I upgraded from the S6000FD: the jpg-processing engine of the S100FS is clearly superior. In certain circumstances bracketing turns out as a very efficient feature. At higher iso settings I don't refrain from shooting at lower resolution (3MP).
Looking forward to part 3 of the review.

Hello Ctein,
Thank you for the most informative review, but I would like to ask why you chose to compare the S100FS with a DSLR like the Nikon D200?
To say it would cost the same as a used D200 body is just not true, as the current going rate for a used D200 from Ebay is between £450-500, which is over £100 more just for the body. The D80 is about the same. And buying second-hand is always risky...
When you add decent (not top!) quality lenses that will come somewhere close to the range of the S100FS you would have to part with probably more than three times the price of the Fuji.
I can understand why you would like to compare the S100FS with a DSLR, but surely it should be an basic entry-level model if anything. And even then, if you tried to put together a set-up with similar zoom range I don't think you could even come close to the £360 that the S100FS would cost here, unless it was (well) used. The cost would probably be at least double!
It seems that the image needs to be viewed at a size of several square feet before the differences become obvious. That it's comparable in any way at all to the D200 is in my view a triumph of design and engineering and probably the best 'bridge' camera so far. But then I haven't used one yet...
I'm not trying to be stroppy about this, it's just that a few reviews now have chosed to compare the images to DSLR's rather than the best the non-DSLR's.
I like the look of this camera, and hope to buy one before the year is out.
It seems to tick most of the boxes in my wishlist:
Excellent image quality at low light (the best for a non-DSLR?)
Image stabilisation - essential for hand-held
zoom pictures, and useful for most of the others
Decent wide-angle
Flexibility - Good macro to telephoto
Portability - no extra lenses to lug around
Nicely weighted - doesn't feel like a toy
Video capability with zoom avilable
Hi quality JPEG images - no need to process anything in RAW unless I want to
Articulating screen - almost essential once you've used one
Remote control option - very useful
Flash shoe - basic, but there if you need it

IOW, it was a whim, done to indulge DD-B's and my curiosity about the image characteristics of our respective cameras. We really didn't expect the two cameras to perform remotely alike. When, to our joint surprise, it turned out to be a USEFUL comparison, I incorporated it in the review.

Don't rush out to buy one until you read Part 3. There are some serious problems.